When you think of the definitive side-scrolling Castlevania experience, we imagine for most people it’s imagery of Symphony of the Night or Super Castlevania IV that first creeps into the ol’ noggin. But while those might be the most popular of responses, there’s a slightly more obscure game in the franchise that many die-hards hold in high regard: Dracula X: Rondo of Blood. Originally a Japan-only release for the PC Engine (known as TurboGrafx-16 in North America), Rondo eventually ventured out to other regions in the form of a Super Nintendo remake/port called Castlevania: Dracula X. Often referred to as one of the biggest disappointments in the entire Castlevania franchise, does this Frankenstein-esque creation incorporate enough worthwhile pieces to earn a recommendation?

The best answer to that question is: not really. Even when looking at Dracula X without comparing it to Rondo, it’s still an incredibly weak video game. The biggest issue we can draw is simply with how it plays. Simply put, Dracula X feels more primitive that it should when compared to other action-platformers released during the same time-frame. Controlling the main character, Richter Belmont, is a frustrating affair, one that will turn away many from the get-go. Weighty jumps that are too restrictive once airborne — as well as attacks with your whip that are limited to horizontal directions — are better suited for the 8-bit era than the refined, multi-directional controls that came with most SNES games; look at the range of motion in Super Castlevania IV, for example. In Dracula X, it’s almost as if there’s a slight delay to every movement, forcing you to react pro-actively as opposed to reactively. While that might not be precisely accurate to say, it does feel that way.

When coming into contact with an enemy or one of their projectiles, Richter will be knocked back a couple spaces and there’s no grace period to allow players to catch their breath. On many occasions an enemy would lunge directly into us, inflicting damage, and then they’d collide into us again before we could clear the area, often resulting in death. Not being able to escape the vicinity of these baddies because of this silly design choice is liable to put your GamePad at risk of coming in range of your wall. Just wait until you must climb numerous flights of stairs in succession; the detection is very poor and if you jump while scaling, you're likely to fall through the stairs and to the ground below.

To make matters worse, there are baffling instances of poor level design that accentuate the clumsiness of the controls. For instance, in Stage Two, you’ll trek across a castle wall/bridge as it crumbles into the nothingness below. Hopping from one section to the next — while swinging away at Creature-from-the-Black-Lagoon-like enemies that suddenly jump into view — is as clunky as it gets. Back on the NES, mastering the controls and having a complete understanding of their quirks and shortcomings was part of the challenge, one largely born of the limitations of the time as opposed to taut and calculated design decisions. But when the Super Nintendo released, those problems mostly became a thing of the past. The developers of Dracula X apparently weren't aware of the improvements and advances occurring around them. It's also worth noting that the amazing branching level design of the PC Engine original has been removed entirely in favour of a linear progression, and there are no additional playable characters — so you can't strut your stuff as Maria Renard like you could in the PC Engine version.

When it comes to cosmetics, Dracula X is a mixed bag. The main character and select enemies feature nice and detailed sprites that are lifted wholesale from the PC Engine version, but the re-imagined environments aren't always as appealing. Ditching the pronounced sprite-work for something with more of a flat, pre-rendered look, the gothic architecture and accompanying décor give a sense that it's stuck between 16 and 32-bit, and it can often be pretty drab. There are, however, nice character animations, attractive colours and sometimes even cool fire effects, but there's an equal dose of instances where these fail impress. Many have been quick to criticize the soundtrack when compared to previous Castlevania efforts, though we rather liked it. It’s of a higher audio quality than we’re used to in a lot of SNES games, and its vibe is complimentary to the action. Considering that the PC Engine original had the benefit of CD, the replicated songs in this cartridge version are surprisingly faithful. The stage one music is particularly noteworthy, and stands as one of the best tunes in the entire franchise.

We were harsh on the controls previously because they are a problem, but please understand that even though they are detrimental to the overall quality of Dracula X, they aren't entirely game-breaking. If you don’t like archaic controls, stay away. If you’re still okay revisiting Castlevania titles from the NES, then you might not have as large of an issue to begin with. This game is really tough, and we felt that much of this difficulty could be attributed to the control troubles and sloppy level design. Technical hindrances — like crippling slowdown — can also surface and complicate matters further. If you want to visit all nine stages available and have at the final boss, be prepared to tame your anger on multiple occasions.

Conclusion

Regardless of how it stacks up to Rondo of Blood, the biggest issues we have with Castlevania: Dracula X stem from the primitive controls and lazy level design. Cheap deaths, clunky mechanics and high difficulty combine to make for more hair-pulling moments than most would care to endure. If you consider yourself a huge fan of the franchise then you'll probably want to form your own opinion of Dracula X, and we don't imagine our warnings would do much to sway you. Everyone else, however, would be best off giving Super Castlevania IV or the PC Engine original — which is available on the Wii Virtual Console, we might add — their precious time instead. This one just doesn't have enough bite, and is a poor facsimile of a legendary release.

With Rondo on Blood still on Wii VC, I probably won't bother with this one but for those who just want a quick Castlevania fix, this one will do too. It's not as great as Rondo of Blood but it's still a good Castlevania remake.

Surprisingly, I disagree with most of this review. Drac X is a great game. The soundtrack is not just good, it's fantastic. The Level Two design you complain about can be mastered with some work, so its more about game difficulty than poor design. Remember, games used to demand that you get better by trial and error before being permitted to progress. And make no mistake, its harder than NES hard, but that actually provides one incentive to buy it on the Wii U VC: Save states are totally justified in this one.

There are a lot of cheap enemy placements, I agree. The bosses are also tougher than those from the PC Engine classic. The Bat in Level 2 is kinda luck-based (especially if you're low on health). I also don't find it to be a port of the PC Engine game. The level designs are a new thing. I rate this game a 7.0 out of 10. It's enjoyable once you start getting good at it. Until then, just keep pulling your hair out!

I LOVE the series with all that i am, BUT the only old school one i like is Castlevania Rebirth on Wiiware. I dislike the first three with all that i am. I dont really care for the 3D games on ps3 either. I guess you can say i love the metroidvania style

Simple, if you want easy Castlevania games play the Metroidvania ones and Super Castlevania IV. If you want a challenge play classic Castlevania games. I'm glad they went back to their roots with Dracula X instead of making another easy Super Castlevania IV for the 2nd SNES game. This game is great, make sure to get it if you enjoy the NES, Genesis, and TG-16 "Vania's."

I do find it ironic that the first thing people say about this game is that it's not Rondo of Blood, and the second thing is that it has super dated/restricted controls... which were lifted directly from Rondo of Blood.

as an owner of the original game ill say the review wasnt as bad as i thought it was going to be, nevertheless if you want an original type CV game dont hesitate to get this. ill be downloading it even though i got the cart. ogo79 recommended.

@Mommar: I know right.
Gamer's: Rondo of Blood is so amazing! To bad its on a obscure system and you got to import it from Japan though.
<Legendary status grows>
[Konami remakes (not "port" because you couldn't port TG-16 games) Rondo of Blood for SNES in the form of Dracula X and more people can experience Rondo of Blood style.]
Gamer's: This game is terrible, it's too hard and I can't whip in all directions and besides that, it's not exactly the legendary Rondo of Blood; that game was so amazing!

@Mommar Except not really. I played a bunch of Rondo on the Wii VC and tried playing Dracula X and they feel really different.

Rondo doesn't give you as much control as Castlevania 4, but it still lets you change your movement in the air. Plus if you unlocked Maria, she has a double jump that makes her even easier to control than Richter.

Dracula X controls a lot more like the NES games, but the level designs are much more punishing. Some of it is just learning how the game controls, but it gets harder even faster than the NES did.

Basically, Dracula X feels like the Lost Levels version of Rondo, but with less personality.

I remember playing Dracula X on an emulator and thinking it was pretty good. Now that I've played Rondo and a lot of the NES Castlevanias, I went back to it again and it really doesn't hold up. I can deal with games being hard, but it seems designed to really punish the players. It feels a lot like the Lost Levels version of Rondo.

The soundtrack is really good though, and is actually better than Rondo's in a couple places.

@hngdmn Really? I played the same version last night and I could have sworn that I could change you jump momentum at any time. Even with that in mind, the level designs are less punishing in Rondo about that restriction. There's a part in the second level of Dracula that will trick you into jumping into a pit if you don't understand how jumping works

I respectfully disagree with the review and maintain that the game is fantastic. I played Rondo on my PSP first, and I still love Dracula X SNES. Firstly, yes this games jumping mechanics are straight from Rondo. So is the whipping. So complaining about those means you're complaining about Rondo too. Second, both games are incredibly hard. SNES just brings the challenges in more concentrated bursts with more emphasis on trial and error until perfection of strategies. Also the SNES one has more bottomless pit platforming. Also, some of the enemies like Sword Lords are more forgiving in the SNES version though others like spear guards are stronger than in Rondo. And I like that you can actually duck under the axe lords axes on the SNES game. There are several other little differences like that between the two . Overall I think Dracula X is a great game that compliments Rondo of Blood. Neither is a substitute for the other, and both should be played.

"In Dracula X, it’s almost as if there’s a slight delay to every movement, forcing you to react pro-actively as opposed to reactively."Well, that's how Castlevania is. Everything moves slowly, your commands have a certain delay(like the swinging animation of the whip), and you have very limited means to attack the enemies. It's not really about reacting to things like Ninja Gaiden or Contra, you plan how you'll deal with enemies in the window of time the game gives you. Super Castlevania IV was an anomaly and not as well liked as the reviewer seems to believe.

"the biggest issues we have with Castlevania: Dracula X stem from the primitive controls and lazy level design. Cheap deaths, clunky mechanics and high difficulty combine to make for more hair-pulling moments than most would care to endure. "

LOLWUT. Oh my God, this entire review is by someone who has no idea what Castlevania truly is. Everything you harp on is what's signature to Castlevania and what makes it great.

Don't listen to this review - Dave doesn't know design. This game is like a 7.5/10.

I grew up playing Castlevania's on NES. This is the first time ever I played Dracula X .These are all hard games including Dracula X. It just something that felt natural for the series. Keep in mind I never played Rondo of Blood so I can't compare them. But this game is good in my honest opinion I give it a 7.0 out of 10.

@SyntheticPerson the level design is a little different and there are slight changes in enemy strengths. The levels are shorter, but always keep you on your toes with difficulty and strategizing. I recommend it if you liked Rondo

I'm really loving the music in this first level. I recognize it from the opening theme of Castlevania 64, which later arranged this song. Good stuff. It sounds fantastic coming out of an SNES.

I'm thinking of getting this game but I probably won't. It just seems like a step back control-wise to not be able to whip in all eight directions like Super Castlevania IV - my fave game in the series. I know that will annoy me.

@SyntheticPerson Control wise, it's not much different than Rondo of Blood. It's just very bare bones. It doesn't have the pseudo-animation, the awesome sound track, clear story writing, or second playable character. This game is a lot like Castlevania I and III but in 16 bit.

Dracula X and Dracula XX are entirely different games, although given the title of a "port." This game is great for lovers of difficulty in games. Not for the faint of heart, that's for sure. Complaining about clunky controls in a Castlevania title is like complaining about restricted movement / stamina in the Souls series. It's clunky for a reason. You are not a superhuman ninja with crazy agility.

@Ryno
these days, as of us...
its like we have the cart.
its a good game.
"they" think we try to defend it because we spent "what ever we spent" on it, and now we need to justify our purchase.
we know its a good game.
we got dem cart$.
let them hate.

OT: this review is stupid. The game is actually very solid and many of the bad points are very subjective and not too much of a game breaking. They are just being harsh because it is not the mega rare TGX16 game.

Considering how many CVs are out there, this doesn't even rank top 10 for me. That's right. Not even top 10.
IV. SotN. CotM. AoS. III. I. Rebirth. Dawn of Sorrow. Despair. Rondo of Blood. Dissonance. LoI (3D, but plays like a 2D game..). II (GB). Lords. Dracula X. 64. Ecclessia. Judgment. Lords 2.
Portrait of Ruin jumps around ALOT.
While every other game may change 3-5 positions depending on my mood or aptitude at the time, PoR has been as high as 4th and as low as 12th.
Ecclessia has been frustrating me with the hitboxes and slight latency, so it's in the doghouse right now.
I love these games and this series.
Hated the 18 minutes I played of Mirror of Fate. Lords of Shadows was nice if nothing more than God of War with a Castlevania skinning. And Lords 2 was atrocious.
Even worse than Judgment.
Almost as poorly designed as 64 (but 64 gets nostalgia points for it's introduction to 3D).
The review is more than fair. This game is a 3 or 4.
There's better options.
As a port, this is a big step back.
As a Castlevania game, it's a poor representative of the series.
But it's still playable, memorable and can be fun.
It's just not that great.

I only rented this game once when I was a kid and I remember being mega disappointed with it after the awesomeness of Super Castlevania IV. While not a bad game it just seems like huge step backwards after SCIV.

Yes the controls were clunky, but so was castlevania IV. Jumping across platforms in IV was just as much of a pain in the ass. I agree, the first level music in X is great. Probably my favourite track from the whole series.

Please, this game is way better than 4. This is like the NES games only better.+It has more colorful environments+You don't need to find stupid whip upgrades, you always have the best whip+Jumping is still clunky, but improved from the NES games+No eight directional whip means that the sub weapons are actually useful, every one.+Music is more "Castlevania" than 4. Yeah, 4 has Simon's theme and remixes of other classic tunes which all sound GREAT, but the original songs (Again, Simon's theme aside) in 4 don't live up to Richter's theme, Portrait of a Ghost Ship, Illusionary Dance (or whatever the final boss music is called, I forgot) etc. And the Vampire Killer and Bloody Tears renditions are better in Drac X too.+Item crash

People just like 4 better because it's easier and lets you whip in eight directions (part of the easy thing). Dracula X takes a lot more skill, which in classic Castlevania is always level memorization. This game is as "cheap" as 4 and any other classicvania.

The complaining about Level 2 makes no sense. You have to play a level to know what's coming ahead? In a game from the 90s?! HUH?! The level GIVES YOU A CROSS to use RIGHT before that part. Throw one, walk forward, the cross kills the enemies coming up, throw another and rinse and repeat. I've done that part with no sub weapon, you just need to understand when the enemies come up.

"It's also worth noting that the amazing branching level design of the PC Engine original has been removed entirely in favour of a linear progression"This is false. I just can't believe how incorrect this is. Yeah, there isn't as many branching paths as Rondo, but there ARE alternate routes and branching paths.

Yes I remember Gamepro gave it a pretty neutral review for the same reasons, it's a step backward even from the NES games. They did ruin the clever level branching parts from the PCE game by replacing them with more generic ones. If the controls were lifted from Rondo of Blood, they got lost in translation. The only reason people think this game is anything but average is because it's worth a lot of money & it's a Castlevania game.

Dave Letcavage is obviously a fool. Rondo is the best in the series and this is the best on a console, and the snes version is even a little harder. He cant beat it so its cheap, it feels primitive because your character isnt over powered as all hell. What a joke, i cant beat this game its too hard, i took a break and decided to look up what people had to say about its difficulty and i came across this, calling it cheap and lazy?! Why do you have a job reviewing games when you dont know the first thing about game design. You suck Dave, go back to playing games that hold your hand which im sure are your favorites. Its controls are tight, its patterns are difficult but fair and require thought. it feels good sounds good its exciting and its satisfying. You probably are the kind of person that doesnt like megaman 1-3 cause theyre too "cheap." Difficulty used to be valued as long as it was fair, the worst thing you can do as a reviewer is not know the difference.